Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Political Identity Crisis
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 153 (281560)
01-25-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Madfish
01-25-2006 1:36 AM


Have any of you gone through a period where you struggled with this? If so, how did you ultimately arrive at a point of clarity?
Actually, the Republicans made it pretty simple for me, when they turned over their party to the religious right and corporate corruption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Madfish, posted 01-25-2006 1:36 AM Madfish has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Madfish, posted 01-25-2006 9:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 153 (281565)
01-25-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-25-2006 5:04 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Imo, socialism is more often than not a disease and cancer on soceity.
Do you pay insurance?
Insurance is socialism, by definition.
Some things are best done as individuals. Some things are best accomplished for everybody when done collectively. Only an idiot would claim that one or the other way was all you needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 5:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 5:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 153 (281569)
01-25-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
01-25-2006 5:54 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Nothing wrong, or maybe not nothing, but certainly volunteer socialism is qualitatively different than state coerced socialism.
If you're going to benefit, shouldn't you have to pay? Much of what you consider "state-coerced" socialism are situations where it's not possible for you to opt out of the benefits; you'll benefit regardless. In those situations basic fairness demands that you not be allowed to opt out of the payments, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 5:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:37 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 16 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 153 (281601)
01-25-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-25-2006 6:37 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Now, take a low wage earner that would make, say, 20K per year in terms of cost to his employer. He is losing $3000 per year because some liberal democrats want to "help him."
Right, but suppose he works 2 years and then is permanently disabled. Now, he draws SS for life. Over the rest of his life he makes way more than the $6000 he's paid so far.
It's insurance, not retirement. You just said that you supported insurance.
If you want to help retirees, get the funding somewhere else besides the poorest wage earners in our soceity.
It's not for retirees. It's insurance for all workers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 12:36 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 153 (281708)
01-26-2006 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
01-26-2006 12:36 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
You think private insurance and retirement plans would cost as much as 15% of one's earning power?
Oh, I think they'd cost much, much more. In fact, it's proven that they would cost much, much more. Social Security is the most cost-effective way to provide what it provides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 12:36 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 153 (281710)
01-26-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
01-25-2006 6:50 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
They also rose because insurance increased demand, and you may say, yea, that's good because more people could get health service, but often the demand is not really effective and necessary. I can't tell you as a parent how many parents rush to the doctor for every little cold their kid has "because, you know, it might be strep", but when they don't have insurance, they stay home unless it really is strep or something worse.
Are their children any better off rushing to the doctor because the insurance pays either way?
Actually, everybody is. Studies prove that the more often people see the doctor early on - something they can only afford to do if they're insulated from the health care costs - the cheaper health care becomes for all the rest of it.
Which makes quite a bit of sense. The vast majority of medical conditions are such that they can be treated a lot more cheaply, or even prevented, by early detection and diagnosis. But doctors can't diagnose via ESP. Your plan, which leaves people out in the cold until the last possible minute, means that conditions aren't treated until they become serious, which means a lot more expense for you and I to shoulder.
More people going to the doctor actually drives costs down, not up. It's a lot cheaper to treat a heart attack by preventing it with medication than by a 6-hour laproscopic surgery. Early detection, which can only happen when people are insulated from medical costs, means that we all shoulder a lot less expense. And people are healthier, too.
Canada has universal health care; as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita, while consistently delivering superior medical care, because people can afford to go to the doctor when they start to get sick as opposed to when they can't ignore it any longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:55 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 37 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:56 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2006 12:36 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 153 (281949)
01-27-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
01-26-2006 11:55 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
So all those millions of Americans that have health insurance take better care of themselves, and so with the increase of health insurance, we should see less obesity, less diabetes, etc,....
Wonder why that isn't happening, crash?
Because less and less Americans are being adequately covered by health insurance. More and more Americans are shouldering health care burdens that insurance used to cover, and as a result, they're going to the doctor less.
What's happening is exactly what I described, and what you would expect to see happen even more if a system such as Bush's "health care savings accounts" would be put into place. And it's exactly what would decrease under a civilized nation; i.e. one that has universal health care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-27-2006 10:23 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-27-2006 12:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 153 (281966)
01-27-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-27-2006 10:23 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
Personal health care savings accounts are a joke that won't help anyone except those who can already afford health insurance.
And not even them, usually. Half of the people who file bankrupcy were bankrupted by unexpected health-care costs; half of those were people with the same high-deductable insurance Bush describes and personal savings, and they were wiped out anyway.
Not to mention, the national savings rate is less than zero. The American people don't make enough to save anything.
Kinda off-topic, though. I mean, I guess if you hate sick people, keep voting Republican. That's the take-away message here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-27-2006 10:23 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 153 (281987)
01-27-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NosyNed
01-27-2006 12:36 AM


Re: Canadian costs
I am reasonalby sure you are way off here Crash.
I could be wrong; I could be conflating some numbers, or misremembering the ratio; or I could be conflating the ratio between the Canadian system and American Medicare/Medicaid and the ratio between the Canadian system and the entire American private healthcare system, including all the private hospitals and the insurers and HMO's.
I'm too lazy to look the numbers up but IIRC we spend about 70 or 80% of the percentage of GNP that you do and cover everyone instead of much fewer than everyone and offer care that is about equivalent in quality.
What's the comparison, there? Canada vs. Medicaid or Canada vs. everything in the US? If you consider the whole American apparatus, and factor in the massive profit margins for insurers, HMO's, private hospitals, and the like, the idea that we spend 6 times what you do doesn't faze me.
Re: quality - I wouldn't consider a program that covers everyone and a program that covers less than everyone - much less - to be the same in quality, regardless of how well-treated wealthy individuals in either system might be. I mean, a rich guy in sub-saharan Africa can get top-quality medicine if he really wants, but nobody would describe the health care in those countries as "quality", or "adequate", or even "above barbaric."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2006 12:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 153 (281988)
01-27-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
01-27-2006 12:05 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
You really think that's what's causing obesity in America and diabetes? That people don't have health care?
Do you think those are the only health problems that Americans have? Obesity and diabetes? Moreover, it's not those diseases, but the complications of them, that are health issues. And those issues can be mitigated by early treatment.
So, yeah. That's what's causing Americans to suffer ill effects from those things - a lack of adequate health care. What proves my point is that the poor and lower middle class are astronomically more likely to suffer these things; the exact people who can't afford health care.
Btw, you gonna back up any of the claims I asked you to back up?
I'm working on it. Not that you would know, because you never do any, but research takes time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-27-2006 12:05 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 01-27-2006 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 153 (281996)
01-27-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tal
01-27-2006 1:51 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
This doesn't make any sense. If they ate less and moved more they wouldn't suffer from the effects in the first place.
There are cultures that eat worse than Americans and cultures that excercise less; yet they don't have nearly the problems that we do.
Certainly, lifestyle is a fair bit of the problem. Doctors help their patients develop healthy lifestyles. But the vast majority of this "Americans are fat and lazy" meme is an attempt by the right to shift the burden of worsening American health from the people actually responsible to the victims themselves.
That is like saying lack of health care causes Americans to die from the effects of Aids, as they do not die from aids itself.
Nobody does die from AIDS. You die from an opportunistic infection caused by immunodeficiency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 01-27-2006 1:51 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tal, posted 01-27-2006 2:59 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 49 by randman, posted 01-27-2006 5:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 153 (282044)
01-27-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tal
01-27-2006 2:59 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Such as?
Have you ever heard of France? For god's sake they smoke there, too. Like chimneys. If anybody should be matching America pound for pound and heart attack for heart attack, it should be the French, with their croissants and fois gras and creme broules.
Yes. I believe in personal responsibility.
I believe in personal responsibility. What you believe in is some kind of sick lassez-faire moralist abdication - the only people responsible for bad things happening is the people to whom they happen.
As though blame was important in the first place. Seems to me the issue is what we should do about it, not who is at fault for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tal, posted 01-27-2006 2:59 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 01-28-2006 2:56 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 153 (282127)
01-28-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
01-28-2006 2:56 AM


Re: bottom line for me...
Plus, there is probably a genetic component to heart disease that the French lack generally.
Boy, you'll just make up any old thing to avoid being proven wrong, won't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 01-28-2006 2:56 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 153 (282165)
01-28-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by macaroniandcheese
01-28-2006 1:47 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
that's it. i'm moving to france.
Get used to warm sodas. They'r pathologically opposed to ice in drinks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-28-2006 1:47 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-28-2006 1:51 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 63 by nator, posted 01-28-2006 2:55 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 67 by Parasomnium, posted 01-28-2006 4:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 153 (282198)
01-28-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
01-28-2006 2:55 PM


Re: bottom line for me...
Jesus, why would you drink soda when you are in France?
Because I like Coke. What, I'm not entitled to enjoy the things I like simply because something different is avaliable?
I studied in Paris for a month, and it was an amazing time of gastronomic and oenologic discovery. I remember every morning, on the walk to classes, stopping by the patisserie for a fresh pear tart for breakfast. Like it was yesterday I can remember the taste and texture of the finest baking in the world.
But, sometimes I had a cheeseburger, Coke, and fries, because I like those things too. I'm no food heathen; I'm a foodie from a long line of Italian foodies. But still, I consider the bacon cheeseburger to be the finest achivement ever created in any of the world's kitchens.
So, that's why I would drink soda in France. Because I like soda, and as you say, food is about pleasing the senses, and my senses are pleased by the tingle of heavy carbonation and the bite of high-fructose corn syrup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 01-28-2006 2:55 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024